On the Clock Doesn’t Always Mean Covered: Personal Errands, Motorcycle Crashes, and What Iowa Riders Should Know

A crash can turn your life upside down in one heartbeat – and the paperwork fights can last way longer than the road rash.

And sometimes the paperwork fight starts with a surprise.

Imagine it’s a Tuesday afternoon. You’ve got your jacket on, you’re running a quick ride to handle something that can’t wait. Maybe your supervisor said, “Yeah, go take care of it.” On your way back, a driver rolls through a stop sign and the next thing you remember is staring up at the sky, hearing somebody say, “Don’t move.”

You get hurt in a motorcycle crash during the workday. Everybody assumes workers’ comp will take care of it. Then the answer comes back no, because the ride gets labeled a personal errand instead of a work trip. What now? Are you screwed?

This article is here to explain what that means, how Iowa looks at work-related travel (including a well-known Iowa Supreme Court case), and what matters most for injured riders: the personal injury / insurance angle.

Quick note: We do not handle workers’ compensation cases. If you have a workers’ comp question, we may be able point you in the right direction. But when it comes to motorcycle crashes and injury claims, that’s our lane.

A recent ruling (New Hampshire) that got our attention

On January 6, 2026, the New Hampshire Supreme Court looked at a motorcycle crash that happened during the workday after a worker got permission to leave. The problem was why he left.

The ride wasn’t tied to a work task. He was literally on his way to put his motorcycle in storage before a storm. It was treated as a personal errand, and the court upheld a decision saying the injury was not compensable under workers’ comp.

The clean takeaway from that ruling is simple:

Permission to leave work isn’t the same thing as a work-related trip.

If you want to read the decision yourself, here it is:

Appeal of Messina (N.H. Jan. 6, 2026) – caselaw summary / text

Why we’re mentioning an out-of-state case: We’re not citing this New Hampshire decision as controlling law in Iowa. Iowa courts are not bound by it, and Iowa has their own rules and precedent. We reference it only as a real-world example of how courts analyze workday motorcycle crashes when a ride is labeled “personal.” It shows how quickly permission to leave work can get separated from a work-related purpose, which is the same coverage fight injured riders run into here.

Now, for Iowa riders, let’s be crystal clear: this New Hampshire decision does not change Iowa law. But it puts a spotlight on a problem that comes up in Iowa too. The moment a ride gets labeled “personal,” coverage fights start. 

What if you’re salaried? What if you’re always on-call?

Iowa has its own travel rules – and there’s a famous case about it

In Iowa, travel cases often come down to one core question:

Did the job create the risk of that ride… or were you basically out handling personal business?

There’s a well-known Iowa Supreme Court decision from 30 years ago that gets cited in these types of situations, and it’s especially relevant here because it involves a motorcycle crash:

Quaker Oats Co. v. Ciha (Iowa 1996) – read the decision

You’ll hear lawyers talk about things like the “going and coming rule,” “special errand,” and “deviation.”

That all sounds like legal soup. Here’s the plain-English version.

Iowa generally treats normal commuting as not work-related. But there are exceptions – and those exceptions start to matter when the job is pulling you onto the road for something beyond your normal commute.

One way to think about it is this:

When a ride is mainly for the employer’s benefit – especially if you’re asked to do something out of the ordinary – it starts looking more “work-connected.”

When a ride is mainly for your own benefit – a personal mission, a detour, an errand – it starts looking less “work-connected.”

That tension is what you see in both the New Hampshire ruling and the Iowa case law.

And here’s why I’m even bringing this up on The Biker Lawyers site.

A workers’ comp “no” isn’t always the end

If workers’ comp denies coverage, it can feel like the door just slammed – especially when you’re dealing with missed work, rising medical bills, and all the other stress that tends to pile up after a serious crash.

But a denial in one system doesn’t automatically erase what happened on the road.

If another driver caused the crash, you may still have a personal injury claim through the normal insurance process – and that’s exactly the kind of case we handle.

If you’re dealing with a motorcycle crash injury in Iowa, these pages are a good place to start:

Iowa Motorcycle Accident Lawyers – who we are and how we help injured riders.

Motorcycle Accidents Practice Area – what a claim can involve and what to expect.

Don’t let the “work angle” distract you from the crash facts

One more hypothetical scene, because this is where people lose ground without realizing it.

You’re sitting at your kitchen table with a sore shoulder and a stack of papers. Your boss is texting you about the “permission” part. HR is asking what the errand was for. Someone mentions workers’ comp. And while all that noise is happening, the other driver’s insurance company is already pulling the police report, calling witnesses, and looking for any way to argue that you caused your own wreck.

Here’s something we see a lot: people get stuck arguing about the “work” part – whether it was personal, whether the boss approved it, whether workers’ comp should apply – while the auto insurer is quietly working on fault.

But if another driver hit you, liability evidence matters no matter what’s happening with workers’ comp.

That’s why we focus on what wins injury claims: how the crash happened, what the proof shows, what your medical records say, and how the insurance company is trying to twist it.

So what’s the Iowa rider takeaway?

The simplest way to think about it is this: the road doesn’t care what bucket your case falls into. You can be a hard-working person, doing what you think is reasonable, and still get smashed by somebody who wasn’t paying attention.

If your crash happened while you were doing something personal during the workday, workers’ comp may fight coverage.

If your crash happened because you were doing something for work beyond the normal routine, workers’ comp may argue it is work-connected.

Either way, if another driver caused the wreck, there may still be a personal injury claim – and that’s where riders get real help.

Different systems. Different rules. Same wreck.

Talk to a biker-first injury law firm (and keep the insurance company honest)

If you were hurt in a motorcycle crash and insurance is already calling, the best time to get help is before you sign anything, before you accept a quick settlement, and before you give the other side a recorded statement.

You can reach us here:

Contact The Biker Lawyers

And if you want the direct practice page:

Motorcycle Accident Lawyers

If you’re local and want something Cedar Rapids-specific:

Motorcycle Accident Lawyer Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Disclaimer

This article is general information, not legal advice. Every crash and every insurance situation is different. If you need advice for your specific case, talk to a qualified attorney.

SOURCES

• Quaker Oats Co. v. Ciha, 552 N.W.2d 143, 150–58 (Iowa 1996) (original decision establishing special errand exception and broad compensable expenses).
• Myers v. F.C.A. Services, Inc., 697 N.W.2d 508 (Iowa 1999) (citing Ciha for substantial evidence standard and industrial disability factors).
• Stone Container Corp. v. Castle, 657 N.W.2d 485 (Iowa 2003) (following Ciha; treating van modifications and even a specialized computer as covered appliances replacing lost function).
• Xenia Rural Water Dist. v. Vegors, 786 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2010) (reaffirming going-and-coming rule and exceptions, citing Ciha).
• Seaman v. Burgess Health Ctr., No. 14-1385, 2015 WL 1332000 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2015) (unpub.) (applying Ciha’s rule; no special errand found on claimant’s commute).
• Nestlé USA v. Conell, 908 N.W.2d 722 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018) (Table) (published at 2018 WL 652872, Feb. 7, 2018) (relying on Ciha and Sioson to allow additional prosthetic as an “extension” of a primary device).
• Huff v. CRST Expedited, Inc., 923 N.W.2d 512 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019) (Table) (published at 2019 WL 1292721, Mar. 20, 2019) (distinguishing Ciha on lack of medical evidence but acknowledging Ciha’s rule that home/vehicle modifications can be covered).
• Keeran v. Quaker Oats Co., 924 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018) (Table) (2018 WL 4360943, Sept. 12, 2018) (citing Ciha for substantial evidence review and confirming Ciha remains a touchstone in workers’ comp cases).

« Go Back